Ron Paul on John Paul II's Legacy

The following is an article written by Ron Paul:

Theology, not Politics
April 11, 2005

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America-- and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin-- he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

[emphasis in bold by Catholics for Ron Paul]

Gay Marriage - A Catholic Look at Ron Paul's Policy

If any of you have watched the recent extended Google interview with Ron Paul, you know he was asked a question about his support of so called "gay marriage" within the context of the principle that government should not interfere with the right of contract between two individuals.

Ron Paul responded with, "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it what they want."

This is a nuanced answer and a far cry from what the judges are doing in Massachusetts.

What then is Ron Paul's policy on so called "gay marriage?"

1. Ron Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman," and he also opposes the idea to create a constitutional amendment to define and defend traditional marriage:

"Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power."


2. Ron Paul supports the "Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state." Ron Paul also was one of the co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction."

3. Ron Paul sees marriage as an institution that predates government and that is rooted in the religious freedom of the individual. His position is that the federal government does not have the authority to interfere with this level of personal association.

4. On the definition of marriage: "The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments."

In essence, Ron Paul is against the efforts to use the courts to impose the redefinition of marriage onto the American people. To him this is an issue of Constitutionalism and Federalism and basic freedoms such as the freedom to contract and the freedom of association.

What he is saying is that the Federal Government (be it the Congress or Courts) do not have authority to govern the marriage between two people, just like it generally doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on the terms of a contract between two people.

Of course, as Catholics we believe that marriage is an institution rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition and is no mere contract, but an unbreakable covenant. But this is far from the law's view of marriage today.

The real question is:

Can Catholics vote for Ron Paul in good conscience given his policy position on "civil unions" and "gay marriage?"

Yes.

Ron Paul is not an advocate of civil unions or gay marriage, he is an advocate of Federalism, the Constitution, and the rights of free association. He is saying that it is the job of you and me, and not the Federal Government, to defend and restore a Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage in culture and law at the State level. He understands the abuses of judicial tyranny and opposes it. He would veto a Congressional law that would seek to legalize gay marriage. And he would veto any hate speech legislation seeking to censor speech about the pathological nature of homosexual behavior.

Before Kinsey and his backers launched a war on Christian America, we had common law protections of Judeo-Christian marriage on the books that promoted the common good and helped hold marriages and therefore society together. But that is no longer the case.

Our marriage laws are in shambles - they reflect a post-Christian pagan worldview that isn't going to be changed over night by banning gay marriage at the Federal level (in fact such an action would imprudently add fuel to the homosexual cause).

Voting for Ron Paul would ensure that a veto would stop legislation that seeks to push gay marriage or civil unions onto America. Voting for Ron Paul would ensure a veto of any hate speech legislation that comes out of Congress that tries to make it a crime to say, "homosexual behavior causes disease and hurts those who engage in it (oh, and it will sink the unrepentant soul into eternal hell)." That the question of marriage would be left to the states where you and I can exercise our freedoms to defend traditional marriage and present the ample evidence for its objective good for society.

Is Ron Paul a gay agenda advocate?

No. Quite the opposite.

He is fundamentally opposed to the idea that we derive special rights by being a member of a particular group (racial, sexual or otherwise).

Does he support homosexuals in their desire to have gay marriage?

Not quite.

He supports the individual's right to freely associate and contract and to call their association whatever they want. But he is opposed to gay pressure groups seeking to socially engineer through he federal courts and he is opposed to one State forcing it policy on another state.

If Massachusetts wants to have gay marriage, let them have have it through the legislative process, but don't push it onto Kansas, and don't force it on the whole United States through judical tyranny.

Politics is the art of the possible.

Ron Paul's position is rooted in the Constitution and basically protects the religious freedom of Catholics and political freedoms of homosexuals to battle it out on the State level. This is not only a prudential path and one that is well within the conscience of Catholic voters, but this path is one that homosexuals should support and vote for as well.

If they gay agenda has the merit they claim then they should be able to sway the electorate rather than force their positions on the American people, and they should have the freedom to make that case.

The Catholic position is the winning side, so we should welcome Ron Paul's position as a means to ensure our liberties in a time when our religious freedoms are being attacked, not the least by homosexual activists.

Ron Paul Visits Google - Raises Issues Sensitive to Catholic Voters

This is a long video, but important to watch because it is an in depth exploration of the issues by a group of very smart and influential people at Google.

Early on in the interview with Elliot Schrage, Google's Vice President for Global Communications & Public Affairs, a number of issues arise which are sensitive to Catholic voters.

• So called "Gay Marriage" & the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy in the Military
• Legalization of Marijuana
• Legalization of Prostitution
• Forcing Pharmacists to Prescribe Contraception and Abortifacients

Ron Paul has positions on some of these issues present serious questions for the committed Catholic voter:

• Ron Paul has no problem with "domestic partnerships" between homosexuals
• Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana
• Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of prostitution
• Ron Paul supports the rights of employees and employers to resolve issues of conscience through private employment contracts

These are serious issues for the Catholic voter as we are prohibited by conscience for voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil public policies that attack the common good.

However, Ron Paul's policies are sophisticated, subtle and complex and not black and white in regard to their moral content. In each of these serious issues, Ron Paul is asking us to reflect on what the Federal Government should and should not be involved with while leaving open the freedom on the local state level for citizens to work out these moral questions.

For example, there is a difference between making the case that gays should have special protection by the law of the Federal Government to get married (an intrinsic evil), versus saying that the Federal Government should not speak on the matter one way or the other, except to protect the local state's right from having to recognize the gay marriage created by another state (a question of prudential judgement and federalism).

In the days ahead, Catholics for Ron Paul will examine these issues and Ron Paul's policy positions in more depth.

On a final note, pay close attention to how many Google questions come from a socialist worldview: the association of fairness with big government education, healthcare, special rights advocacy for gays & women, etc. Of particular interest is the implication made by Elliot Schrage that problems like "Global Warming" call for "collective" action - i.e. socialism on a global scale. This is a red flag in the eyes of Catholics for Ron Paul, especially since Al Gore is a top advisor to the company. The issue of "Global Warming" and the hype around it is seen by some as a ploy to make the case for globalist governance, e.g. to "save the planet" we need a global authority to solve the problem. The tone of Elliot Schrage's question about this issue has only confirmed the sense that Google's public policy drift is toward collectivism.